Case information

Family law – Filiation – Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in its interpretation of uninterrupted possession of status by confusing criterion of treatment with that of common report (commune renommée), whereas common report criterion must relate to public nature of child’s bond of filiation and not to parental behaviour – Whether, if Court of Appeal’s interpretation to effect that possession of status relates only to parental behaviour is accepted, equivocal nature of possession of status resulting from non-exclusive performance of parental role by two fathers prevents uninterrupted possession of status within meaning of article 524 of Civil Code of Québec, thereby barring application of article 530 of Civil Code of Québec – Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in reassessing facts adduced in evidence in Quebec Superior Court although there was no patent and unreasonable error – Civil Code of Québec (CQLR), arts. 524 and 530.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) (PUBLICATION BAN ON PARTY) (CERTAIN INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC)

The respondent D.C. is legally recognized to be the father of a child born in 2015. The applicant, W.G., is the child’s biological father. W.G. brought an action to claim paternity in the Superior Court.

The Superior Court dismissed his action, relying for that purpose on art. 530 of the Civil Code of Québec. The majority of the Court of Appeal agreed with that conclusion, expressing the opinion that art. 530 of the Civil Code of Québec barred W.G. from claiming the possession of status in this case. Dutil J.A., dissenting, would have declared W.G. to be the child’s father: in her view, it was not possible to block biological filiation in this case.